SAU RAJANI versus SAU SMITA & ANR

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 08-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
SAU RAJANI
v.
SAU SMITA & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 5216 of 2022)
AUGUST 08, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A S BOPANNA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.9 – Bar of jurisdiction of
civil court – Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976
(MHADA) – ss.71, 177 and 66(1)(a)(iv) – Appellant claimed to be
in possession of the residential tenement – The first respondent is
stated to be in occupation of a ground floor tenement in the same
building – Appellant alleged that the first respondent has made illegal
and unauthorized construction in open vacant site situated in the
side of the block which has affected her easements including
privacy, light, air, water supply – Appellant instituted regular civil
suit seeking removal of illegal construction, grant of permanent
prohibitory injunction restraining first respondent-defendant from
making any construction over the open site and restoration of water
connection – First respondent filed written statement contending
that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit
under s.71 r/w s.177 of the MHADA – Civil Judge dismissed the
challenge to the jurisdiction and decreed the suit – District Court
affirmed the finding of the civil judge – High Court, however, allowed
the second appeal filed by the respondent and held that the suit
was barred in terms of the provisions of sections 71 and 177 of the
MHADA – Held: The objective of the bodies and authorities
constituted under the MHADA is to ensure repairing and
reconstructing buildings to provide housing – The competent
authority under the Act (MHADA) has jurisdiction to order the
eviction in terms of the provisions of s.66 but that was not the relief
claimed by the plaintiff-appellant in the suit – Thus, the reliefs
claimed by the appellant were beyond the scope of the Act – Suit of
the nature filed by the appellant would be maintainable before the
civil court and would not be barred by s.71 or s.177 of the MHADA.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 126
126
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 71 of the Act provides for the bar of
jurisdiction of civil courts. In terms of the provision, no civil court
shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings (i) “in
respect of the eviction of any person from any Authority premises
under this Chapter”; or (ii) for the recovery of the arrears of
rent, compensation or damages for the use and occupation of
such premises; or (iii) in respect of any order made or to be made
or any action taken or to be taken by the competent authority in
exercise of the power conferred by or under the Chapter; or (iv)
to grant an injunction in respect of such order or action. Section
177 bars the jurisdiction of a civil court in respect of any matter
which the Authority or Tribunal is empowered by or under the
Act, to determine. Similarly, no injunction or stay can be granted
by a Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to
be taken in pursuance of the power conferred or duty imposed
by or under the Act. [Para 11][134-C-E]
2. Section 66(1)(b) of MHAD Act entrusts the competent
authority with a power to order eviction on the grounds which
are set out in the provision. Under clause (b), where a person is
in unauthorized occupation of any ‘Authority premises’, the
competent authority may proceed to order the person to be
evicted from the premises. [Para 12][134-F, H]
3. Under Section 9 of CPC, the civil court has the jurisdiction
to try all suits of a civil nature, except those in respect of which
the jurisdiction is barred either expressly or impliedly by a specific
provision of law. The objective of the bodies and authorities
constituted under the Act is to ensure repairing and
reconstructing buildings to provide housing. Undoubtedly, the
competent authority has the jurisdiction to order eviction in terms
of the provisions of Section 66. But that is not the frame of the
suit or the relief which has been claimed by the appellant in the
suit. The reliefs sought by the appellant in the plaint are: (i) the
removal of the unauthorized construction; (ii) a permanent
prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from
constructing over the open site and causing ‘nuisance’; and (iii)
SAU RAJANI v. SAU SMITA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
restoration of the water connection as it was prior to the
construction. The appellant instituted the suit for injun

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.